Face and object cognition across age
Online Supplement
Appendix A: Overview of Indicators
Indicator
Name of Indicator
FP 1 & 2
Speed/
Acc
acc
Nr. of
trials
60
Macc
SDacc
Sequential matching of part- (FP
.69 & .67 .11 & .11
1) whole (FP 2) faces
FP 3 & 4
Simultaneous matching of
acc
60
.73 & .64 .12 & .11
spatially manipulated faces (FP 3
– upright; FP 4 – inverted)
OP 1 & 2
Sequential matching of part- (OP
acc
60
.70 & .67 .11 & .11
1) whole (OP 2) houses
OP 3 & 4
Simultaneous matching of
acc
60
.70 & .68 .13 & .12
spatially manipulated houses (FP
3 – upright; FP 4 – inverted)
FM1
Learning and immediate memory
acc
150
.86
.09
of faces
FM 2
Delayed recognition of learned
acc
30
.83
.12
faces 1
FM 4
Delayed recognition of learned
acc
30
.85
.12
faces 2
FM 3
Eyewitness testimony
acc
46
.72
.11
SFC 1
Recognition speed of learned
speed
32
.88
.11
faces
SFC 2
Delayed non-matching to sample
speed
46
.94
.11
faces
SFC 3
Simultaneous matching of faces
speed
30
.88
.08
from different viewpoints
SFC 4 & 5
Simultaneous matching of upper
speed
60
.94 & .93 .11 & .10
face-halves
SFC 6
Simultaneous matching of face
speed
30
.91
.08
morphs
SOC 1
Delayed non-matching to sample
speed
46
.92
.14
houses
SOC 2
Simultaneous matching of
speed
30
.95
.05
morphed houses
SOC 3
Verification task (houses)
speed
46
.87
.07
Note. Classification of the indicators as measures of Face Perception (FP), Object Perception (OP),
Face Memory (FM), Speed of Face Cognition (SFC) and the Speed of Object Cognition (SOC),
speed versus accuracy (acc) as predominant source of performance variability, Macc – mean
performance; SDacc – Standard Deviation.
1
Face and object cognition across age
Appendix B: Task descriptions
Name of Indicators
Sequential matching of partwhole faces and houses
Simultaneous matching of
spatially manipulated faces
vs. houses
Learning and immediate
memory of faces
Delayed recognition of
learned faces 1
Delayed recognition of
learned faces 2
Eyewitness testimony
Task description
A face vs. house was presented for 1 s. After an interstimulus interval of 200 ms, a face (eyes, nose, or mouth) or house detail
(window, door, or roof) appeared in the part condition together with the same feature extracted from a different face / house.
Participants indicated which of two features belonged to the target face or house. In the whole condition, the target face /
house was presented together with a distracter composed of the target face / house with one facial feature (eyes, nose, or
mouth) or one house detail replaced by the corresponding detail from another face or house. Targets had to be indicated. Part
and whole conditions were defined as separate indicators. For stimuli examples see Appendix C.
Two faces / houses were presented simultaneously either upright (50% of trials) or turned upside down (inverted). Stimuli
within a trial were always from the same face / house. Half of the trials presented faces or houses unaltered. In the other half
of the trials one spatial relationship between facial features or house details in one of the faces (e.g. distance between eyes and
nose, between eyes, between mouth and nose) or houses (e.g. distance between windows) in one of the stimuli was
manipulated. Participants indicated whether these pictures were identical or not (conditions same vs. different). For stimuli
examples see Appendix D.
The task had two procedurally identical parts. In each part, fifteen faces were presented for 45 seconds. Participants were
asked to memorize as many faces as possible. The recognition phase consisted of five runs and followed the study phase after
two minutes, in which participants completed an unrelated intermediate task. Targets (learned faces) appeared once in each
recognition run always coupled with new and highly similar distracters. Learned faces had to be indicated. To ensure further
learning during the recognition phase, feedback was given after each response. Targets were highlighted by a green frame,
regardless of the participants’ accuracy. For false responses, distracters were additionally crossed out with red bars labeled
with the German word “falsch” (i.e., incorrect).
Recognition performance for the total of 30 faces studied during the Learning and immediate memory of faces task was
assessed in the same session approximately two and a half hours later. Learned faces appeared successively, together with
completely new distracters. Learned faces had to be indicated.
At the beginning of the second test session, approximately one week after learning, participants were asked to recognize the
30 faces learned during the Learning and immediate memory of faces task.
In this incidental memory task two faces per trial were presented, one of which was already presented in two preceding tasks
for face cognition speed. Participants were asked to indicate the previously seen face.
2
Face and object cognition across age
Name of Indicators
Recognition speed of
learned faces
Delayed non-matching to
sample faces vs. houses
Simultaneous matching of
faces from different
viewpoints
Simultaneous matching of
upper face-halves
Simultaneous matching of
face morphs vs. morphed
housed
Verification task (houses)
Task description (continued)
The task consisted of four parts. A study phase was followed by a delay and a recognition phase. Four faces were presented for
one minute. The long presentation time was chosen to allow for robust encoding. During a delay time of approximately four
minutes, participants completed a reasoning test. By recognition, four learned and four new faces appeared on the screen one at
a time. Participants had to indicate whether the presented face is a learned or new face.
A target face / house was presented for 1 s, followed by a 4 s delay. Thereafter, target face / house was presented together with
a new face / house. Participants were asked to indicate the novel face / house.
Two faces per trial were presented. They were arranged in the diagonal of the screen, one in frontal and the other in threequarter view. Participants indicated whether the faces depicted the same person or different people.
Facial stimuli were divided horizontally into upper and lower halves. The upper half of a face was added to the lower half of
another face, forming a composite face. Upper and lower halves were always from different people. In the aligned condition,
face halves were attached to form a new normally structured face. In the non-aligned condition, the left or right face-edges of
the top face-halves were positioned above the nose of the bottom face-halves. In each condition, two composite faces were
presented in the diagonal of the screen. Participants compared the upper face-halves of two simultaneously presented aligned
(50% of trials) or non-aligned faces and decided whether or not they originated from the same person. Aligned and non-aligned
conditions were defined as separate indicators. For stimuli examples see Appendix F.
Face stimuli for any given trial were derived with the morphing method from the same two parent faces morphed together to
varying degrees. Pairs of morphs were either similar or dissimilar (50% of trials). House stimuli were unaltered pictures of
houses. Pairs depicted either the same house or different houses. Participants made a similarity decision for each pair.
Houses were presented one at a time. Participants indicated whether the presented house had only quadrangular windows or
also some of another form.
3
Face and object cognition across age
Appendix C: Procedure of indicators FP 1 and FP 2
Adapted from “Structural Invariance and Age-Related Performance Differences in Face Cognition - Online
Supplement” by A. Hildebrandt, W. Sommer, G. Herzmann and O. Wilhelm, 2010, Psychology and Aging, 25, pp.
794-810. Copyright 2010 by the American Psychological Association.
Sequential matching of part-whole faces – conditions part and condition whole
Panel A – procedure of the part condition
1. Target presented for 1000 ms
3. Feature testing in isolation
2. Interstimulus interval of 200 ms
XXX
Which face/house part matches the face
you have seen before?
Panel B – procedure of the whole condition
1. Target presented for 1000 ms
3. Feature testing – whole face
2. Interstimulus interval of 200 ms
XXX
Which face/house matches the face
you have seen before?
4
Which face part matches the face
Face and object cognition across age
Appendix D: Examples of stimuli used for the indicators FP 3, FP 4, OP 3 and OP 4
Simultaneous matching of spatially manipulated faces – condition upright and condition inverted
Panel A
original face/upright condition
Panel C
original face/inverted condition
Panel B
eyes-nose relation altered/upright condition
Panel D
eyes-nose relation altered /inverted condition
5
Face and object cognition across age
Simultaneous matching of spatially manipulated houses – condition upright and condition
inverted
Panel E
original house/upright condition
Panel F
manipulated distance between windows and roof/
upright condition
Panel G
original house/inverted condition
Panel H
manipulated distance between window ranks/
inverted condition
6
Face and object cognition across age
Appendix E: Examples of stimuli for indicators SFC 4 and SFC 5
Adapted from “Structural Invariance and Age-Related Performance Differences in Face Cognition - Online
Supplement” by A. Hildebrandt, W. Sommer, G. Herzmann and O. Wilhelm, 2010, Psychology and Aging, 25, pp.
794-810. Copyright 2010 by the American Psychological Association.
Simultaneous matching of upper face-halves – condition aligned and condition non-aligned
Panel A
condition aligned
Panel B
condition non-aligned
7